The practicality of IPv6 - Revision history

Rosolam at 00:13, 13 April 2009

2009-04-13T00:13:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:13, 13 April 2009
Line 20:		Line 20:

	== Scrutiny and Criticism of the Protocol ==		== Scrutiny and Criticism of the Protocol ==
-	Criticism has arose around the implementation of and the need for IPv6. IPv6 is a protocol designed to 'replace' IPv4; a protocol that 'extended' IPv4 would have been easier to implement, and as a result, a warmer reception could have ensued.<SUP>[ [[The IPv6 Mess #References\|15]] ]</SUP> A point has also been raised suggesting that all internet communication should support IPv6 before it is even deployed, removing all communication issues. Others believe that the problem itself is severely overstated; a recent study suggests that under 4% of the used IPv4 addresses are connected to visible hosts.<SUP>[ [[Exploring Visible Internet Hosts through Census and Survey\|16]] ]</SUP> This suggests that the majority of IPv4 addresses could be intellegently recycled and maintained. Also, IPv6 does not solve many of the routing problems that have plagued IPv4.<SUP>[ [[The Imminent Collapse of the Internet\|17]] ]</SUP> ~~These criticisms and the struggles IPv6 adoption has faced~~	+	Criticism has arose around the implementation of and the need for IPv6. IPv6 is a protocol designed to 'replace' IPv4; a protocol that 'extended' IPv4 would have been easier to implement, and as a result, a warmer reception could have ensued.<SUP>[ [[The IPv6 Mess #References\|15]] ]</SUP> A point has also been raised suggesting that all internet communication should support IPv6 before it is even deployed, removing all communication issues. Others believe that the problem itself is severely overstated; a recent study suggests that under 4% of the used IPv4 addresses are connected to visible hosts.<SUP>[ [[Exploring Visible Internet Hosts through Census and Survey\|16]] ]</SUP> This suggests that the majority of IPv4 addresses could be intellegently recycled and maintained. Also, IPv6 does not solve many of the routing problems that have plagued IPv4.<SUP>[ [[The Imminent Collapse of the Internet\|17]] ]</SUP>

	== Usage Statistics ==		== Usage Statistics ==

Rosolam at 00:12, 13 April 2009

2009-04-13T00:12:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:12, 13 April 2009
Line 50:		Line 50:
	* [http://www.ipv6.org/ IPv6.org]		* [http://www.ipv6.org/ IPv6.org]
	* [http://www.ipv6forum.com/ The IPv6 Forum]		* [http://www.ipv6forum.com/ The IPv6 Forum]
-	* http://www.ipv6.com/ The Source for IPv6 Information]	+	* [http://www.ipv6.com/ The Source for IPv6 Information]
	* [http://inetcore.com/project/ipv4ec/index_en.html IPv4 Exhaustion Counter]		* [http://inetcore.com/project/ipv4ec/index_en.html IPv4 Exhaustion Counter]
	* [http://www.arbornetworks.com/IPv6research IPv6 Usage Report]		* [http://www.arbornetworks.com/IPv6research IPv6 Usage Report]

Rosolam at 00:12, 13 April 2009

2009-04-13T00:12:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:12, 13 April 2009
Line 48:		Line 48:

	== External Links ==		== External Links ==
-	~~(External Links)<BR>~~	+	* [http://www.ipv6.org/ IPv6.org]
		+	* [http://www.ipv6forum.com/ The IPv6 Forum]
		+	* http://www.ipv6.com/ The Source for IPv6 Information]
	* [http://inetcore.com/project/ipv4ec/index_en.html IPv4 Exhaustion Counter]		* [http://inetcore.com/project/ipv4ec/index_en.html IPv4 Exhaustion Counter]
	* [http://www.arbornetworks.com/IPv6research IPv6 Usage Report]		* [http://www.arbornetworks.com/IPv6research IPv6 Usage Report]
	* [http://www.sixxs.net/misc/coolstuff/ Cool Stuff for IPv6 Only]		* [http://www.sixxs.net/misc/coolstuff/ Cool Stuff for IPv6 Only]
		+
	== See Also ==		== See Also ==
	[[The Future of the Internet: IPv6]]<BR>		[[The Future of the Internet: IPv6]]<BR>

Rosolam at 00:11, 13 April 2009

2009-04-13T00:11:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:11, 13 April 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[http://www.cas.mcmaster.ca/wiki/index.php/The_Future_of_the_Internet:_IPv6 '''IPv6'''] is an Internet Layer protocol that was created to succeed the currently-used IPv4 (which will eventually need replacing). The official specification of IPv6 was released in December of 1998,<SUP>[ [[IPv6 Specification #References\|1]] ]</SUP> and after a decade it still has not become a fully-adopted Internet Protocol. While recent efforts have increased IPv6's overall internet-wide penetration,<SUP>[ [[IPv6 at the Beijing Olympics #References\|2]] ]</SUP> IPv4 is still the dominant protocol by a vast margin. There are several issues concerning the feasibility of the overall adoption if IPv6, resulting in some doubting the very need for a completely new protocol. There is much more to the protocol than simply adding or replacing a certain piece of hardware or software, and this has lead to the situation where potential future adopters are reluctant to use the protocol, unable to see how IPv6's advantages offset its high costs; this is especially relevant for potential adopters who do not see themselves requiring more IP addresses than they already have.		[http://www.cas.mcmaster.ca/wiki/index.php/The_Future_of_the_Internet:_IPv6 '''IPv6'''] is an Internet Layer protocol that was created to succeed the currently-used IPv4 (which will eventually need replacing). The official specification of IPv6 was released in December of 1998,<SUP>[ [[IPv6 Specification #References\|1]] ]</SUP> and after a decade it still has not become a fully-adopted Internet Protocol. While recent efforts have increased IPv6's overall internet-wide penetration,<SUP>[ [[IPv6 at the Beijing Olympics #References\|2]] ]</SUP> IPv4 is still the dominant protocol by a vast margin. There are several issues concerning the feasibility of the overall adoption if IPv6, resulting in some doubting the very need for a completely new protocol. There is much more to the protocol than simply adding or replacing a certain piece of hardware or software, and this has lead to the situation where potential future adopters are reluctant to use the protocol, unable to see how IPv6's advantages offset its high costs; this is especially relevant for potential adopters who do not see themselves requiring more IP addresses than they already have.
-
-	~~<BR><BR>How to reference: <SUP>[ [[Name of Section #References\|1]] ]</SUP> <BR>~~

	== IPv4 Address Exhaustion ==		== IPv4 Address Exhaustion ==
Line 22:		Line 20:

	== Scrutiny and Criticism of the Protocol ==		== Scrutiny and Criticism of the Protocol ==
-	Criticism has arose around the implementation of and the need for IPv6. IPv6 is a protocol designed to 'replace' IPv4; a protocol that 'extended' IPv4 would have been easier to implement, and as a result, a warmer reception could have ensued.<SUP>[ [[The IPv6 Mess #References\|15]] ]</SUP> A point has also been raised suggesting that all internet communication should support IPv6 before it is even deployed, removing all communication issues. Others believe that the problem itself is severely overstated; a recent study suggests that under 4% of the used IPv4 addresses are connected to visible hosts.<SUP>[ [[Exploring Visible Internet Hosts through Census and Survey\|16]] ]</SUP> This suggests that the majority of IPv4 addresses could be intellegently recycled and maintained. Also, IPv6 does not solve many of the routing problems that have plagued IPv4.<SUP>[ [[The Imminent Collapse of the Internet\|17]] ]</SUP>	+	Criticism has arose around the implementation of and the need for IPv6. IPv6 is a protocol designed to 'replace' IPv4; a protocol that 'extended' IPv4 would have been easier to implement, and as a result, a warmer reception could have ensued.<SUP>[ [[The IPv6 Mess #References\|15]] ]</SUP> A point has also been raised suggesting that all internet communication should support IPv6 before it is even deployed, removing all communication issues. Others believe that the problem itself is severely overstated; a recent study suggests that under 4% of the used IPv4 addresses are connected to visible hosts.<SUP>[ [[Exploring Visible Internet Hosts through Census and Survey\|16]] ]</SUP> This suggests that the majority of IPv4 addresses could be intellegently recycled and maintained. Also, IPv6 does not solve many of the routing problems that have plagued IPv4.<SUP>[ [[The Imminent Collapse of the Internet\|17]] ]</SUP> These criticisms and the struggles IPv6 adoption has faced

	== Usage Statistics ==		== Usage Statistics ==

Rosolam at 00:10, 13 April 2009

2009-04-13T00:10:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:10, 13 April 2009
Line 22:		Line 22:

	== Scrutiny and Criticism of the Protocol ==		== Scrutiny and Criticism of the Protocol ==
-	~~That crazy guy~~.	+	Criticism has arose around the implementation of and the need for IPv6. IPv6 is a protocol designed to 'replace' IPv4; a protocol that 'extended' IPv4 would have been easier to implement, and as a result, a warmer reception could have ensued.<SUP>[ [[The IPv6 Mess #References\|15]] ]</SUP> A point has also been raised suggesting that all internet communication should support IPv6 before it is even deployed, removing all communication issues. Others believe that the problem itself is severely overstated; a recent study suggests that under 4% of the used IPv4 addresses are connected to visible hosts.<SUP>[ [[Exploring Visible Internet Hosts through Census and Survey\|16]] ]</SUP> This suggests that the majority of IPv4 addresses could be intellegently recycled and maintained. Also, IPv6 does not solve many of the routing problems that have plagued IPv4.<SUP>[ [[The Imminent Collapse of the Internet\|17]] ]</SUP>
-	~~http:/~~/~~ran~~.~~psg~~.~~com~~/~~~randy/011004~~.~~ripe.pdf~~ , ~~slide 22~~.	+

	== Usage Statistics ==		== Usage Statistics ==
Line 29:		Line 28:

	== Internet Readiness ==		== Internet Readiness ==
-	[http://go6.net/ipv6-6bone/ 6bone], the IPv6 testbed, has finished all of its testing for IPv6. While this finished some time ago, it is a recent transgression given the timeline of IPv6. This puts the "functional age" of IPv6 at around 6 years, as opposed to the nearly 15 year lifespan of the project thus far. The facts that IPv6 internet traffic is near nonexistant and international support is scarce does not mean that IPv6 is being ignored. Many significant online initiatives have taken place over the last few years that will ensure rapid IPv6 support, whenever that may occur. China, for example, gave extensive coverage of the 2008 Beijing Olympics over IPv6, and many neighbouring Asian countries took similar initiatives.<SUP>[ [[CIO Article\|11]] ]</SUP> The European Union has also called for 25% of its subsidiaries to switch to IPv6 by 2010<SUP>[ [[The Register #References\|12]] ]</SUP>. This will not only increase IPv6 traffic considerably, it will also potentially boost the appeal for making the switch. All US Federal Goverment agencies are already IPv6 compliant, meaning the eventual transition will be seemless to their operations.<SUP>[ [[FederalTimes.com\|13]] ]</SUP> Comcast Telecommunications also recently made all of their internal network IPv6. The resouding feeling is that IPv6's current cold reception is not as significant as potential for smooth transition.<SUP>[ [[Comcast\|14]] ]</SUP>	+	[http://go6.net/ipv6-6bone/ 6bone], the IPv6 testbed, has finished all of its testing for IPv6. While this finished some time ago, it is a recent transgression given the timeline of IPv6. This puts the "functional age" of IPv6 at around 6 years, as opposed to the nearly 15 year lifespan of the project thus far. The facts that IPv6 internet traffic is near nonexistant and international support is scarce does not mean that IPv6 is being ignored. Many significant online initiatives have taken place over the last few years that will ensure rapid IPv6 support, whenever that may occur. China, for example, gave extensive coverage of the 2008 Beijing Olympics over IPv6, and many neighbouring Asian countries took similar initiatives.<SUP>[ [[CIO Article\|11]] ]</SUP> The European Union has also called for 25% of its subsidiaries to switch to IPv6 by 2010.<SUP>[ [[The Register #References\|12]] ]</SUP> This will not only increase IPv6 traffic considerably, it will also potentially boost the appeal for making the switch. All US Federal Goverment agencies are already IPv6 compliant, meaning the eventual transition will be seemless to their operations.<SUP>[ [[FederalTimes.com\|13]] ]</SUP> Comcast Telecommunications also recently made all of their internal network IPv6. The resouding feeling is that IPv6's current cold reception is not as significant as potential for smooth transition.<SUP>[ [[Comcast\|14]] ]</SUP>

	== References ==		== References ==
Line 46:		Line 45:
	# Castelli, Elise. Agencies ready for next-generation Internet, OMB reports. The Federal Times, 2008. http://federaltimes.com/index.php?S=3607993		# Castelli, Elise. Agencies ready for next-generation Internet, OMB reports. The Federal Times, 2008. http://federaltimes.com/index.php?S=3607993
	# Durand, Alain. IPv6 @ Comcast. Comcast. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-54/presentations/IPv6_management.pdf		# Durand, Alain. IPv6 @ Comcast. Comcast. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-54/presentations/IPv6_management.pdf
		+	# Berstein, D.J. The IPv6 Mess. http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html
		+	# Heidemann, John et al. Exploring Visible Internet Hosts through Census and Survey. USC/ISI. http://www.isi.edu/~johnh/PAPERS/Heidemann07c.pdf
		+	# Bush, Randy et al. Imminent Collapse of the Internet. http://ran.psg.com/~randy/011004.ripe.pdf

	== External Links ==		== External Links ==

Rosolam at 23:49, 12 April 2009

2009-04-12T23:49:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:49, 12 April 2009
Line 20:		Line 20:
	=== Struggles with Adoption ===		=== Struggles with Adoption ===
	There are many issues affecting the deployment of IPv6. Firstly, there is a tremendous financial investment for ISPs to make, which the United States Department of Commerce estimates to be around $25 billion.<SUP>[ [[NIST Document #References\|7]] ]</SUP> Also, as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law Metcalfe's Law] implies, the benefits of incremental IPv6 usage increases are small. Also, the internet security community has not been very supportive of the protocol, with less than one in three commercially available firewalls supporting IPv6.<SUP>[ [[ICANN Survey #References\|8]] ]</SUP> ISPs may be reluctant to embrace or invest in the new protocol with such a lack of protection, and the incentives for doing so are few.<SUP>[ [[Arbor Networks Article #References\|9]] ]</SUP>		There are many issues affecting the deployment of IPv6. Firstly, there is a tremendous financial investment for ISPs to make, which the United States Department of Commerce estimates to be around $25 billion.<SUP>[ [[NIST Document #References\|7]] ]</SUP> Also, as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law Metcalfe's Law] implies, the benefits of incremental IPv6 usage increases are small. Also, the internet security community has not been very supportive of the protocol, with less than one in three commercially available firewalls supporting IPv6.<SUP>[ [[ICANN Survey #References\|8]] ]</SUP> ISPs may be reluctant to embrace or invest in the new protocol with such a lack of protection, and the incentives for doing so are few.<SUP>[ [[Arbor Networks Article #References\|9]] ]</SUP>
-
-	~~== Usage Statistics ==~~
-	The overall internet traffic with IPv6 addresses make up roughly .002% <SUP>[ [[Measuring IPv6 Usage #References\|10]] ]</SUP> of the overall traffic on the internet. This number (proportionately to itself) fluxuates significantly. Over a year-long period (between July 2007 and July 2008), IPv6 piqued at just over .008%, while it bottomed out at just over .001%.<SUP>[ [[Arbor Networks Article #References\|9]] ]</SUP>
-
-	~~== Internet Readiness ==~~
-	~~Talk about 6bone, Beijing, US Gov't, etc~~

	== Scrutiny and Criticism of the Protocol ==		== Scrutiny and Criticism of the Protocol ==
	That crazy guy.		That crazy guy.
	http://ran.psg.com/~randy/011004.ripe.pdf , slide 22.		http://ran.psg.com/~randy/011004.ripe.pdf , slide 22.
		+
		+	== Usage Statistics ==
		+	The overall internet traffic with IPv6 addresses make up roughly .002% <SUP>[ [[Measuring IPv6 Usage #References\|10]] ]</SUP> of the overall traffic on the internet. This number (proportionately to itself) fluxuates significantly. Over a year-long period (between July 2007 and July 2008), IPv6 piqued at just over .008%, while it bottomed out at just over .001%.<SUP>[ [[Arbor Networks Article #References\|9]] ]</SUP> While the numbers show a rather unsteady but active trend in IPv6 usage, they also show that the overall IPv6 traffic on the internet is nearly negligible regardless of how much support it has in any given country.
		+
		+	== Internet Readiness ==
		+	[http://go6.net/ipv6-6bone/ 6bone], the IPv6 testbed, has finished all of its testing for IPv6. While this finished some time ago, it is a recent transgression given the timeline of IPv6. This puts the "functional age" of IPv6 at around 6 years, as opposed to the nearly 15 year lifespan of the project thus far. The facts that IPv6 internet traffic is near nonexistant and international support is scarce does not mean that IPv6 is being ignored. Many significant online initiatives have taken place over the last few years that will ensure rapid IPv6 support, whenever that may occur. China, for example, gave extensive coverage of the 2008 Beijing Olympics over IPv6, and many neighbouring Asian countries took similar initiatives.<SUP>[ [[CIO Article\|11]] ]</SUP> The European Union has also called for 25% of its subsidiaries to switch to IPv6 by 2010<SUP>[ [[The Register #References\|12]] ]</SUP>. This will not only increase IPv6 traffic considerably, it will also potentially boost the appeal for making the switch. All US Federal Goverment agencies are already IPv6 compliant, meaning the eventual transition will be seemless to their operations.<SUP>[ [[FederalTimes.com\|13]] ]</SUP> Comcast Telecommunications also recently made all of their internal network IPv6. The resouding feeling is that IPv6's current cold reception is not as significant as potential for smooth transition.<SUP>[ [[Comcast\|14]] ]</SUP>

	== References ==		== References ==
Line 42:		Line 42:
	# Labovitz, Craig. The End is Near, but is IPv6? Arbor Security Networks, 2008. http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2008/08/the-end-is-near-but-is-ipv6/		# Labovitz, Craig. The End is Near, but is IPv6? Arbor Security Networks, 2008. http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2008/08/the-end-is-near-but-is-ipv6/
	# Huston, Geoff and Michaelson, George. Measuring IPv6 Deployment. 2008. http://www.potaroo.net/presentations/2008-06-18-ipv6-deployment.pdf		# Huston, Geoff and Michaelson, George. Measuring IPv6 Deployment. 2008. http://www.potaroo.net/presentations/2008-06-18-ipv6-deployment.pdf
		+	# Worthen, Ben. Internet Strategy: China's Next Generation Internet. CIO, 2006. http://www.cio.com/article/22985/Internet_Strategy_China_s_Next_Generation_Internet_?page=1
		+	# Williams, Chris. EU sets ambitious IPv6 target. The Register, 2008. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/27/eu_reding_ipv6/
		+	# Castelli, Elise. Agencies ready for next-generation Internet, OMB reports. The Federal Times, 2008. http://federaltimes.com/index.php?S=3607993
		+	# Durand, Alain. IPv6 @ Comcast. Comcast. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-54/presentations/IPv6_management.pdf

	== External Links ==		== External Links ==

Rosolam at 23:14, 12 April 2009

2009-04-12T23:14:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:14, 12 April 2009
Line 19:		Line 19:

	=== Struggles with Adoption ===		=== Struggles with Adoption ===
-	There are many issues affecting the deployment of IPv6. Firstly, there is a tremendous financial investment for ISPs to make, which the United States Department of Commerce estimates to be around $25 billion.<SUP>[ [[NIST Document #References\|7]] ]</SUP> Also, as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law Metcalfe's Law] implies, the benefits of incremental IPv6 usage increases are small. Also, the internet security community has not been very supportive of the protocol, with less than one in three commercially available firewalls supporting IPv6.<SUP>[ [[ICANN Survey #References\|8]] ]</SUP> ISPs may be reluctant to embrace or invest in the new protocol with such a lack of protection, and the incentives for doing so are few.	+	There are many issues affecting the deployment of IPv6. Firstly, there is a tremendous financial investment for ISPs to make, which the United States Department of Commerce estimates to be around $25 billion.<SUP>[ [[NIST Document #References\|7]] ]</SUP> Also, as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law Metcalfe's Law] implies, the benefits of incremental IPv6 usage increases are small. Also, the internet security community has not been very supportive of the protocol, with less than one in three commercially available firewalls supporting IPv6.<SUP>[ [[ICANN Survey #References\|8]] ]</SUP> ISPs may be reluctant to embrace or invest in the new protocol with such a lack of protection, and the incentives for doing so are few.<SUP>[ [[Arbor Networks Article #References\|9]] ]</SUP>

	== Usage Statistics ==		== Usage Statistics ==
-	~~From that main article~~	+	The overall internet traffic with IPv6 addresses make up roughly .002% <SUP>[ [[Measuring IPv6 Usage #References\|10]] ]</SUP> of the overall traffic on the internet. This number (proportionately to itself) fluxuates significantly. Over a year-long period (between July 2007 and July 2008), IPv6 piqued at just over .008%, while it bottomed out at just over .001%.<SUP>[ [[Arbor Networks Article #References\|9]] ]</SUP>

	== Internet Readiness ==		== Internet Readiness ==
Line 41:		Line 41:
	# ICANN Security and Stability. Survey of IPv6 Support in Commercial Firewalls. ICANN, 2007. http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac021.pdf		# ICANN Security and Stability. Survey of IPv6 Support in Commercial Firewalls. ICANN, 2007. http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac021.pdf
	# Labovitz, Craig. The End is Near, but is IPv6? Arbor Security Networks, 2008. http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2008/08/the-end-is-near-but-is-ipv6/		# Labovitz, Craig. The End is Near, but is IPv6? Arbor Security Networks, 2008. http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2008/08/the-end-is-near-but-is-ipv6/
-		+	# Huston, Geoff and Michaelson, George. Measuring IPv6 Deployment. 2008. http://www.potaroo.net/presentations/2008-06-18-ipv6-deployment.pdf

	== External Links ==		== External Links ==

Rosolam at 22:56, 12 April 2009

2009-04-12T22:56:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:56, 12 April 2009
Line 19:		Line 19:

	=== Struggles with Adoption ===		=== Struggles with Adoption ===
-	There are many issues affecting the deployment of IPv6. Firstly, there is a tremendous financial investment to ~~be made~~, which the United States Department of Commerce estimates to be around $25 billion.<SUP>[ [[NIST Document #References\|7]] ]</SUP> Also, as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law Metcalfe's Law] implies, the benefits of incremental IPv6 usage increases are small. ~~The~~ internet security community has not been very supportive of the protocol, with less than one in three commercially available firewalls supporting IPv6.<SUP>[ [[ICANN Survey #References\|8]] ]</SUP>	+	There are many issues affecting the deployment of IPv6. Firstly, there is a tremendous financial investment for ISPs to make, which the United States Department of Commerce estimates to be around $25 billion.<SUP>[ [[NIST Document #References\|7]] ]</SUP> Also, as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law Metcalfe's Law] implies, the benefits of incremental IPv6 usage increases are small. Also, the internet security community has not been very supportive of the protocol, with less than one in three commercially available firewalls supporting IPv6.<SUP>[ [[ICANN Survey #References\|8]] ]</SUP> ISPs may be reluctant to embrace or invest in the new protocol with such a lack of protection, and the incentives for doing so are few.

	== Usage Statistics ==		== Usage Statistics ==
Line 40:		Line 40:
	# Gallagher, Michael P. IPv6 Economic Impact Assessment. US Dept. of Commerce, 2005. http://www.nist.gov/director/prog-ofc/report05-2.pdf		# Gallagher, Michael P. IPv6 Economic Impact Assessment. US Dept. of Commerce, 2005. http://www.nist.gov/director/prog-ofc/report05-2.pdf
	# ICANN Security and Stability. Survey of IPv6 Support in Commercial Firewalls. ICANN, 2007. http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac021.pdf		# ICANN Security and Stability. Survey of IPv6 Support in Commercial Firewalls. ICANN, 2007. http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac021.pdf
		+	# Labovitz, Craig. The End is Near, but is IPv6? Arbor Security Networks, 2008. http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2008/08/the-end-is-near-but-is-ipv6/

Rosolam at 22:49, 12 April 2009

2009-04-12T22:49:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:49, 12 April 2009
Line 19:		Line 19:

	=== Struggles with Adoption ===		=== Struggles with Adoption ===
-	There are many issues affecting the deployment of IPv6. Firstly, there is a tremendous financial investment to be made, which the United States Department of Commerce estimates to be around $25 billion.<SUP>[ [[NIST Document #References\|7]] ]</SUP>	+	There are many issues affecting the deployment of IPv6. Firstly, there is a tremendous financial investment to be made, which the United States Department of Commerce estimates to be around $25 billion.<SUP>[ [[NIST Document #References\|7]] ]</SUP> Also, as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law Metcalfe's Law] implies, the benefits of incremental IPv6 usage increases are small. The internet security community has not been very supportive of the protocol, with less than one in three commercially available firewalls supporting IPv6.<SUP>[ [[ICANN Survey #References\|8]] ]</SUP>

	== Usage Statistics ==		== Usage Statistics ==
Line 29:		Line 29:
	== Scrutiny and Criticism of the Protocol ==		== Scrutiny and Criticism of the Protocol ==
	That crazy guy.		That crazy guy.
		+	http://ran.psg.com/~randy/011004.ripe.pdf , slide 22.

	== References ==		== References ==
Line 38:		Line 39:
	# Market Share by Net Applications, http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=10&qpmr=24&qpdt=1&qpct=3&qpcal=1&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=120&qpnp=1		# Market Share by Net Applications, http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=10&qpmr=24&qpdt=1&qpct=3&qpcal=1&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=120&qpnp=1
	# Gallagher, Michael P. IPv6 Economic Impact Assessment. US Dept. of Commerce, 2005. http://www.nist.gov/director/prog-ofc/report05-2.pdf		# Gallagher, Michael P. IPv6 Economic Impact Assessment. US Dept. of Commerce, 2005. http://www.nist.gov/director/prog-ofc/report05-2.pdf
-	#	+	# ICANN Security and Stability. Survey of IPv6 Support in Commercial Firewalls. ICANN, 2007. http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac021.pdf


Line 45:		Line 46:
	* [http://inetcore.com/project/ipv4ec/index_en.html IPv4 Exhaustion Counter]		* [http://inetcore.com/project/ipv4ec/index_en.html IPv4 Exhaustion Counter]
	* [http://www.arbornetworks.com/IPv6research IPv6 Usage Report]		* [http://www.arbornetworks.com/IPv6research IPv6 Usage Report]
		+	* [http://www.sixxs.net/misc/coolstuff/ Cool Stuff for IPv6 Only]
	== See Also ==		== See Also ==
	[[The Future of the Internet: IPv6]]<BR>		[[The Future of the Internet: IPv6]]<BR>

Rosolam at 22:32, 12 April 2009

2009-04-12T22:32:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:32, 12 April 2009
Line 11:		Line 11:

	=== Worldwide Breakdown ===		=== Worldwide Breakdown ===
-	According to a Google study<SUP>[ [[Google Study #References\|5]] ]</SUP>, no more than 1% of the internet traffic from 'any' country worldwide uses IPv6. Russia has the most IPv6 traffic with .76%. China, at .24%, would be argued to have more overall IPv6 volume than any other country, but in proportion its IPv6 adoption rate is still significantly smaller than some other countries.~~<br>~~	+	According to a Google study<SUP>[ [[Google Study #References\|5]] ]</SUP>, no more than 1% of the internet traffic from 'any' country worldwide uses IPv6. Russia has the most IPv6 traffic with .76%. China, at .24%, would be argued to have more overall IPv6 volume than any other country, but in proportion its IPv6 adoption rate is still significantly smaller than some other countries. The charts below <SUP>[ [[Google Study #References\|5]] ]</SUP> give a more detailed breakdown of what the most IPv6-friendly nations are. While some countries have serveral times the amount of IPv6 traffic per capita, the overall amount of traffic (in proportion or overall) compared to IPv4 is miniscule.
-	~~[[Image:IPv6Country.jpg\|frame\|center\|Figure 1: Worldwide IPv6 Demographics<SUP>[5]</SUP>]]<br>~~	+	[[Image:IPv6Country.jpg\|frame\|center\|Figure 1: Worldwide IPv6 Demographics<SUP>[5]</SUP>]]
-	The charts ~~above~~ <SUP>[ [[Google Study #References\|5]] ]</SUP> give a more detailed breakdown of what the most IPv6-friendly nations are. While some countries have serveral times the amount of IPv6 traffic per capita, the overall amount of traffic (in proportion or overall) compared to IPv4 is miniscule.	+
-		+

	=== Platform-wide Breakdown ===		=== Platform-wide Breakdown ===